Michael Champion

I agree that we should think about implementation / testing criteria in the process document now that there have been years of somewhat inconsistent practice to learn from. Requiring tests...

In practice at W3C isn't there usually a fair amount of implementation experience before CR? And in practice aren't test results a major driver of changes during CR? I'd guess...

Sorry, I guess I was thinking while writing and didn’t go back to make a consistent proposal. Having 5 people after the 1st year is one mitigation for all the...

> If I get elected to the TAG or AB, am I required to be available for election to the Directorate I'd say 'no'. But under the W3C Council proposal,...

@cwilso my detailed suggestions are discussion starters, not well thought out suggestions. Thanks for the discussion! I don’t have strong feelings about recusal other than: - it should rarely be...

The sorts of people who have been elected to the TAG are indeed the sorts of people who are best equipped to handle appeals, formal objections, and consult on overall...

Hmm, the proposal for a Directorate is getting awfully complex -- 5 members, 4 alternates, a rotating W3M representative, and a lot of recusal language. I understand the rationale: "The...

It's currently hard to get a formal objection sustained; one has to convince the Director that a WG consensus (as determined by the chair) is somehow wrong. There aren't many...

I'm a bit torn: in general I believe supermajority voting is a way to break impasses when there is dissent but an issue SHOULD be decided by some semblance of...

Yes I mean "experts" == "FO Council" Here's a scenario: - A WG that does NOT REALLY have sufficient technical expertise gets agreement on a spec. Actual experts did not...